On 11/07/18 20:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-07-11, Ron Aaron  wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2018 19:48, Alex McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> On 11-Jul-18 16:51, Ron Aaron wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/07/2018 18:01, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/07/2018 14:01, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really an issue, for, if you're chasing execution time on
>>>>> a 1GHz processor, then get yourself a 2GHz processor.
>>>>
>>>> Wow. Really?
>>>>
>>>> And what do you do when you run out of GHz to pursue?  Tell your clients
>>>> to get multiple boxes?
>
> That's parallelism, innit?
>
>>> We're nearly at the GHz limit for processors; I don't know the exact
>>> figures, but anything beyond 5GHz seems to be it. Certainly the power
>>> consumption & heat dissapation is a big problem. Intel are shipping
>>> multi core monsters, not faster single cores.
>>
>> Exactly my point.  CPU speeds haven't increased appreciably for a number
>> of years.
>
> So now software bloat has nowhere to hide...
>
Indeed.

Probably get a new generation of compilers that analyse bloatware and
completely rewrite it to work as intended, rather than as written...


--
“Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,”

  – Ludwig von Mises

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05